2000 (10) TMI 933

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ANAN, C.J.-Heard Mr. Sanjeev Johari, Advocate, for the petitioner. 2.. This writ petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the judgment dated April 15, 1998 annexure 4 and to quash the same. There are other consequential prayers also. Reported as Leeladhar Biyani and Sons v. Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-Evasion, Sriganganagar [2001] 124 STC 294 (RTT). 3.. The contention of the w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , hearing the arguments and examining the materials placed on record, came to a categorical conclusion that once regular final assessment orders have been made and the position taken by the applicant-firm has been accepted as correct the penalty could not be levied on it. It also held that in the absence of a case of avoidance or evasion of tax the non-applicant could not acquire the jurisdiction .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rein and setting aside the demand notice with regard to the penalty amounts. 7.. In view of the view we have now taken, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Chauhan Enterprises [1994] 93 STC 37 (Raj), does not lay down the correct legal position. With respect, we are unable to subscribe our views to the view taken by the learned sin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X